February 22, 2018 SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN Attorneys at Law Alabama Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi South Carolina Tennessee Texas Washington, DC Lucian T. Pera Direct: E-Fax: Re: Opinion Concerning Possible Conflict of Interest of District Attorney Glenn Funk and His Office Concerning Investigation of Mayor Megan Barry Dear Mr. Martin: You have asked me to provide you with my analysis of whether District Attorney General for the 20 th Judicial District Glenn Funk has a conflict of interest that requires his recusal or disqualification from participating in or supervising an ongoing criminal investigation of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Mayor Megan Barry. You have also asked that I consider whether, if General Funk does have such a disqualifying conflict of interest, other attorneys and personnel in his office must also recuse or be disqualified from participation in this investigation. This letter summarizes my analysis and opinion. SUMMARY In summary, as set out in more detail below, in my opinion, District Attorney General Glenn Funk is required by the Tennessee lawyer ethics rules and case law to recuse or be disqualified from his supervision and participation in the criminal investigation of Mayor Megan Barry. Further, in my opinion, Tennessee lawyer ethics rules and case law also require that General Funk s entire office also recuse or be disqualified from participating in this investigation. FACTS As I understand the facts, Mayor Barry is currently under investigation for possible criminal misconduct, including possible official misconduct as Mayor. General Funk is supervising and participating in this criminal investigation. Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 700 Memphis, Tennessee Fax

2 Page 2 The office of the District Attorney General for the 20 th Judicial District, which General Funk supervises as the elected district attorney general, receives very substantial annual funding for its ongoing operations from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ( Metro ). Pursuant to express provisions of the Metro Charter, Mayor Barry has an important and well-defined role in the allocation, appropriation, and approval of all of Metro s funding for the District. See, e.g., Metro Charter 6. To summarize this budget process, General Funk, like Metro department heads, must submit to the Mayor s director of finance a proposed budget seeking any Metro funds to be appropriated to the district attorney s office and he presents this budget request to the Mayor in a meeting open to the public. The Metro director of finance and the Mayor then review this and other budget requests, and the Mayor then is required to propose to the Metro Council, as part of a larger budget, a budget for the district attorney s office. News reports suggest that General Funk has sought or will seek Metro funding additional to that provided his office by Metro last year, possibly for additional personnel tied to the use of police body cameras, pay increases, and additional prosecutors. Under these same Metro Charter provisions, General Funk also has clear obligations concerning any Metro funding provided to his office, including an obligation to present any budget requests to the Mayor. ANALYSIS Like other Tennessee lawyers, the conduct of district attorneys is governed by Tennessee s legal ethics rules, the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. 1 Those rules govern the circumstances in which district attorneys are disqualified by a conflict of interest. 2 Rule 1.7(a)(2) 3 prohibits a lawyer from taking on any representation where 1 Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. 2 Rule 1.11(d)(1) makes clear that district attorneys are governed by the conflict of interest rule discussed here, Rule 1.7. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.11(d)(1) and Comment [1]. 3 This Rule: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.7(a)(2).

3 Page 3 there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. While a district attorney general may or may not have an attorney-client relationship that arises from his position, Tennessee courts have been very clear about the special role of a prosecutor and the ethical requirement that they avoid conflicts of interest. In one leading case, the Tennessee Supreme Court noted that, [i]n determining whether to disqualify a prosecutor in a criminal case, the trial court must determine whether there is an actual conflict of interest, which includes any circumstances in which an attorney cannot exercise his or her independent professional judgment free of compromising interests and loyalties (emphasis added). 4 The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct themselves, in commenting on a prosecutor s special role, cites this case and confirms that independence of judgment and impartiality are fundamental requirements of the ethics rules for prosecutors: A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice whose duty is to seek justice rather than merely to advocate for the State's victory at any given cost. See State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tenn. 1994). For example, prosecutors are expected to be impartial in the sense that charging decisions should be based upon the evidence, without discrimination or bias for or against any groups or individuals. Yet, at the same time, they are expected to prosecute criminal offenses with zeal and vigor within the bounds of the law and professional conduct. State v. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d 309, 314 (Tenn. 2000). 5 On this basis, Tennessee legal ethics rules prohibit a district attorney general or any other Tennessee prosecutor from taking on any matter where there is a significant risk that their independent professional judgment or impartiality will be materially limited by their responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest. In my opinion, General Funk s official responsibility and interest in obtaining Metro funding for his office creates a conflict of interest for him in supervising or 4 State v. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d 309, (Tenn. 2000). 5 Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 3.8 ( Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor ), Comment [1].

4 Page 4 participating in an investigation of possible criminal misconduct by Mayor Barry. 6 This conclusion is based on my view that there is a significant risk that General Funk s independent professional judgment or impartiality will be materially limited by his obligations and interests concerning obtaining funding from Metro for his office s operations. The typical concern underlying this material limitation conflict of interest rule focuses on concern about the risk that a lawyer in this situation may, for example, pull his punches, acting more to favor the interest that creates the conflict here, for example, by acting more in Mayor Barry s interest than independence and impartiality would require. For a prosecutor, there is the additional concern that, because a prosecutor must be an impartial minister of justice, this other interest creating the conflict might lead the lawyer to act more adversely than independence and impartiality might require. Let me be very clear. Nothing in my opinion reflects any judgment that General Funk will actually do anything less than ethical or honorable in conducting the investigation of Mayor Barry. I have no opinion concerning whether General Funk s judgment concerning the investigation of Mayor Barry is now or will be, in fact, impaired by his obligations and interests concerning Metro funding for his office. I also have no opinion concerning whether General Funk will be, as he is required to be, impartial in supervising or participating in the investigation of Mayor Barry. That is not the issue under the ethics rules. The ethics rules clearly and expressly do not require a finding that General Funk will not use independent professional judgment or that he will not be impartial. Instead, the ethics rules specifically, Rule 1.7(a)(2) focus on whether there is a significant risk that his independent professional judgment or impartiality will be materially limited by his obligations and interests concerning Metro funding. This in intended to be an objective and forward-looking analysis of risk. In my opinion, that analysis leads to the conclusion that General Funk does have a conflict of interest and that, as a result, the ethics rules require that he recuse himself from any role in this investigation. 7 6 In addition, in my opinion, General Funk s official responsibility and interest in funding for his office should also be considered a personal interest under the ethics rules that likewise imposes a material limitation under Rule 1.7(a)(2). 7 In addition, based on the facts here, in my opinion, it is very clear that, General Funk s continued supervision of and participation in the investigation of Mayor Barry creates an appearance of impropriety. See Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d at Whether the ethics rules and Tennessee case law

5 Page 5 You have also asked me to consider whether, if General Funk must recuse or be disqualified on these fact, his entire office must also recuse or be disqualified. In my opinion, it should. As one leading case has noted, [i]f disqualification is required the trial court must also determine whether the conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety requires disqualification of the entire District Attorney General's office. 8 Here, in my opinion, both the language of the ethics rules and the appearance of impropriety created by General Funk s office being involved in this investigation mandate that his entire office recuse or be disqualified. First, the ethics rule prohibiting material limitation conflicts discussed above applies with equal force to all lawyers and other personnel in General Funk s office. While the interest of any individual prosecutor in General Funk s office in Metro funding may seem less direct than General Funk s (they do not, for example, have the same duties as General Funk under the Metro Charter), their interest is clear. Within the last year, for example, General Funk has sought Metro funding for salary increases for certain people working in his office, in budget requests made directly to the Mayor. Moreover, even personnel in General Funk s office who may not see any personal financial benefit from continued or increased Metro funding share an interest in Metro funding for the office as a whole and also share an interest in Metro s granting of any request by General Funk, who directly or indirectly supervises them. On this basis, in my opinion, the ethics rules require recusal or disqualification of General Funk s entire office because there is a significant risk that the independent professional judgment or impartiality of each member of his office will be materially limited by interests concerning Metro funding for his office s operations. Second, in my opinion, under Tennessee case law, an appearance of impropriety arising from an office s participation in this investigation of Mayor Barry requires the office s disqualification. 9 In my opinion, the participation of lawyers and other personnel in General Funk s office in this investigation creates an appearance of impropriety for requires General Funk s recusal or not (and I believe they do), in my opinion, a prudent prosecutor faced this situation would discharge his duties as a minister of justice most effectively by recusing himself. 1995)). 8 Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d at 313 (citing State v. Tate, 925 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. Crim. App. 9 Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d at

6 Page 6 much the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, as well as for the reasons I believe support my conclusion that General Funk should recuse or be disqualified. 10 Please let me know if you need any further information or explanation concerning my analysis or opinions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, Lucian T. Pera 10 In a similar situation, the district attorney general for the district including Knox County recused from an investigation of the Knox County mayor. See State attorney general to investigate Mayor s Office, Knoxville News Sentinel (Aug. 11, 2008). While this instance is not, of course, binding precedent, in my view, it is an example of a responsible prosecutor responding to concerns very similar to the concerns present here.